Posted on 07/08/2013 6:49:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Prosecutors asked a Florida judge on Monday to block the jury in the George Zimmerman trial from seeing an animated re-enactment of the shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, saying the video distorts the events of that fatal encounter.
Defense lawyers want to show the video to the six-woman jury that will decide the fate of Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder and has pleaded not guilty, saying he shot Martin in self-defense.
State prosecutors argued that the video fails to show the Kel Tec 9mm pistol that Zimmerman, 29, a white and Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer, used to shoot Martin, 17, once through the heart.
Prosecutors also objected because they said the animation video shows details of the fatal struggle based on the animator's "approximations," including the number of blows during the fight and how each body reacts to those blows.....
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
No race-baiting going on here. Nope!
I HOPE THE HISPANICS ARE WATCHIGN WHAT THE DEMOCRAPS ARE DOING HERE!
I thought racial profiling was bad???
They’re even profiling neighborhoods now.
No way this animation should be allowed - it’s pure speculation. Would they allow the prosecution to do the same? If Zimmerman is on his back, and his holster is in his back waistband, how did Martin know it was there and reach for it? How could Martin do that if he was beating Zimmerman’s head into the ground and holding Zimmerman’s mouth and nose at the same time? How can they allow Martin’s blood tox admitted while Zimmerman wasn’t even tested? Why don’t they present Zimmerman’s past (restraining orders, assault on LEO)?
The restraining order was a two-way, mutual agreement and the “assault” never led to a conviction, IIRC. I thought courts had ruled in the past that arrests and convictions were two different things and as a rule, arrests were to be kept out of court cases as “previous bad acts” or did I misunderstand that?
Still trying to stop Zimmerman from defending himself.
>> No way this animation should be allowed - it’s pure speculation.
Not speculation — it’s an animation of what Zimmerman said happened.
Who said it was in the back?
How could Martin do that if he was beating Zimmerman’s head into the ground and holding Zimmerman’s mouth and nose at the same time?
Who said he did them at the same time?
Do you work for MSNBC?
The judge is obviously a shill for Zimmerman.
The State has been “speculating” in this entire trial.
It should be admitted and the jury can decide if is credible or not credible.
That’s what jury’s do.
Depends on the crime.
Zimmerman described, from the very beginning, that his holster was worn on the right side of his body.
How could Martin do that if he was beating Zimmerman’s head into the ground and holding Zimmerman’s mouth and nose at the same time?
I'm not aware of any report of Martin reaching for the pistol while simultaneously covering Zimmerman's nose and mouth; rather, Zimmerman reported that Martin reached for the gun afterward.
Why don’t they present Zimmerman’s past (restraining orders, assault on LEO)?
Restraining orders are irrelevant. People get restraining orders all the time, they are not prima facia evidence of anything, nor does their existence have any probative value. I believe the "assault on an officer" was ultimately dropped and, from what I read of that case, it was pretty ridiculous.
So an animation of the what the prosecution said happened would be OK?
Sure, but it would have all the believability of Saturday morning cartoons.
If that's the case then the animation is effectively Zimmerman's testimony and therefore cannot be admitted unless Zimmerman is put on the stand and allowed to be cross-examined.
The state doesn’t want any competition when it comes to animation. They have the monopoly on cartoons when it comes to this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.